Page 1 of 20
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 8
Publication Date: August 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.118.17373.
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness
of Teaching Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the
Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching Methodology of Arabic
Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University
(UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA
Achmad Yani Bin Imam Subari
Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA)
Siti Sara Binti Haji Ahmad
Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA)
Rafidah Binti Abdullah
Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA)
Hambali Bin Haji Jaili
Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA)
Rafizah Binti Abdullah
Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA)
Nur Basirah Binti Haji Rosmin
Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA)
ABSTRACT
This research aims to introducing the effectiveness of methodology of teaching
Arabic language communication in the Faculty of Usuluddin, university of Sultan
Sharif Ali (UNISSA), Brunei Sultanate, Darussalam. The researchers have
distributed the questionnaires to the students of Level one in the same faculty, the
same university, who attended Arabic Language Communication class, 2024
session. They were 12 students among overall number of 30 students, (which
sampled 40%). After these students arrived at the required data, they carried out
quantitative and evaluative analysis to arrive at the required results. This research
finds that the positive aspects of methods of teaching Arabic Language
Communication in Sultan Sheriff Ali Islamic University is that teacher
communicates in Arabic Language when he teaches Arabic Language
communication in the University of Sultan Sheriff Ali with the percentage of
(93.3%); that the teacher requires students to communicate within themselves
with Arabic language on topics relating to daily conversation under (90%); that he
records their voices during this exercise in the class; that he makes verbal
corrections in the case of mistakes committed by students by listening to this voice
record (86.7%); that he requires students to make written conversation within
themselves(81.7%); that he presents the students’ written conversation on the
screen in the class 88.3%; that he makes correction of errors committed by students
on the screen through the use of projector in the class (80%); that he provides
enough chance for students, for listening to Arabic voices on topics related to daily
conversation(86.7%); that he provides chance for oral conversation within
Page 2 of 20
128
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
themselves (81.7%); that he uses attractive method in Arabic language
communication course (88.3); that he drills the students on four language
acquisition skills (86.7). on the negative part, it shows that the teacher does not
speak Arabic language when he teaches Arabic Language Communication in the
UNISSA (6.7%); that he does not require students to converse orally in Arabic
language between themselves (10%); that he does not record the students’ voices
during their oral conversation (25%); that he does not make correction on the oral
mistakes committed by students (13.3 %); that he does not require students to
make written conversation with Arabic language between themselves (18.3%); that
he does not presenting students’ conversation on the screen in the class (11.7%);
that he does not correct written mistakes of the students on the projector (20%);
that he does not provide enough time to students for listening to Arabic voices
relating to the topic on daily interaction (13.3%); that he does not give enough time
to students for oral conversation relating to the topic on oral conversation between
themselves (15%); that he does not provide enough time to students for writing the
conversation relating to daily interaction (18.3%); that he does not use the
attractive method in the Arabic language communication course (8.3%); that he
does not use different types of teaching methodology in Arabic language
communication course (11.7%); that he does not drill students on four language
acquisition skills (13.3%).
Keywords: Teaching, methodology, Arabic, Language, communication
INTRODUTION
Teaching Arabic language in Brunei Darussalam soon had a significant amount of development
in the sixties of the previous century, when regular Arabic schools for boys and girls were set
up, when His Majesty Sultan (Ḥaji ʿOmar Sayf al-Din Saʿd al-KhairWa al-Din) laid the first
foundation stone of Arab schools in the country on the day Thursday 17 of May in 1384 AH,
corresponding to 24 September 1964, and then “Institute of Religious Teachers of Sri Begawan”
(KUPUSB)opened in 1972 to produce the teachers of Arabic language and religious materials
in religious primary schools. The establishment of these Arabian schools in Brunei Darussalam
is counted one of the important scientific, religious and educational achievements, according to
the results given as the great religious and educational goals achieved by these schools in Arab- Islamic aspects, as these schools play an important role in the formation of an educated Muslim
society. These Arabic schools have become a basic important center for Islamic teaching
(Shamsuddin and Sara: 2017).
LANGUAGE TEACHING METHOD IN THE LIGHT OF COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
The communicative approach is based on the idea that learning language successfully comes
through having to communicate real meaning. When learners are involved in real
communication, their natural strategies for language acquisition will be used, and this will
allow them to learn to use the language, for example: practising question forms by asking
learners to find out personal information about their colleagues is an example of the
communicative approach, as it involves meaningful communication. In the classroom, activities
guided by the communicative approach are characterised by trying to produce meaningful and
real communication, at all levels. As a result, there may be more emphasis on skills than
systems, lessons are more learner-centred, and there may be use of authentic materials
(https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/communicative-approach).
Page 3 of 20
129
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
Communicative language teaching (CLT), or the communicative approach, is
an approach to language teaching that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the
ultimate goal of study. Language learners in environments utilizing CLT techniques learn and
practice the target language through interaction with one another and the instructor, study of
"authentic texts" (those written in the target language for purposes other than language
learning), and use of the language in class combined with use of the language outside of class.
Learners converse about personal experiences with partners, and instructors teach topics
outside of the realm of traditional grammar in order to promote language skills in all types of
situations. This method also claims to encourage learners to incorporate their personal
experiences into their language learning environment and focus on the learning experience in
addition to the learning of the target language. According to CLT, the goal of language education
is the ability to communicate in the target language. This is in contrast to previous views in
which grammatical competence was commonly given top priority. CLT also focuses on the
teacher being a facilitator, rather than an instructor. Furthermore, the approach is a non- methodical system that does not use a textbook series to teach English but rather works on
developing sound oral/verbal skills prior to reading and writing
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_language_teaching).
McLaren (2005) said that the latter views language learning as the product of the diverse sub
competences comprised within the general concept of communicative competence; that is, not
merely linguistic or grammatical competence, as in previous methods, but also sociolinguistic,
discourse, and strategic competences. Hence, the primary goal of CLT is to develop
communicative competence, to move “beyond grammatical and discourse elements in
communication” and probe the “nature of social, cultural, and pragmatic features of language”.
Consequently, learners are expected, not so much to produce correct sentences or to be
accurate, but to be capable of communicating and being fluent. Classroom language learning is
thus linked with real-life communication outside its confines, and authentic samples of
language and discourse or contextualized chunks rather than discrete items are employed.
Students are hence equipped with tools for producing unrehearsed language outside the
immediate classroom (Brown, 1994: 77). This general goal of CLT can be viewed in two ways,
since, as Howatt (1984: 279) points out, it has both a “weak” and a “strong” version. The weak
version “stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English
for communicative purposes and, characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into
a wider program of language teaching”. On the other hand, the strong version “advances the
claim that language is acquired through communication”, so that language ability is developed
through activities simulating target performance and which require learners to do in class
exactly what they will have to do outside it. But let us characterize CLT further, beyond its
central aim, by examining its theory of language and learning, its syllabus, activity types, and
materials, as well as its teacher and learner roles. At the level of language theory, the
Communicative Approach is based, in line with what we have already mentioned, on Hymes’
and Canale and Swain’s view of communicative competence, on Halliday’s theory of language
functions, and on Widdowson’s view of the communicative acts underlying language ability.
Muhsin Ali Atiyyah (2008) wrote that this approach is based on the purpose that language is
part of life, as it fundamentally focused on simplification of communicative procedure among
the societal individuals since the means of linguistic communication is language through its
written and verbal vocabularies. Also, the meanings indicated by those vocabularies portray
Page 4 of 20
130
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
the motive while the reaction of the receiver depicts the response. Meanwhile, all of them
constitute the result of reasonable and functional activities between the two parties of the
communicative procedure. Therefore, communication commences when the sender develops
interest in sending a message which may be out of a response to a specific inducement or out
of initiation through the posing of another exciting impulse in the domain of verbal or written
communication. That means the role of the sender is manifested in the symbolic constructions.
In contrary, the receiving party is perceived in a trying effort to understand the spoken
illustrations or written symbols which are contained in the message with an attempt to
comprehend it in the light of his capacities and experiences. The meaning of that is that the role
of the receiver is manifested in the emancipation of these symbols. Based on that, it is inferred
that communication may be either spoken or written, direct or indirect. Whatever category of
communication that may be engaged, man is always in need of it, and he is therefore mandated
to study Arabic Language Teaching from this angle. On this basis, the concerned people in
Arabic teaching have agitated for its inclusion in teaching module in the light of the concept of
communication theory and its parts. In addition, the agitators appealed for necessary study of
communication activities on the basis that it is an integrated system in which various elements
are mutually overlapping, interacting and interpenetrating in the sphere of the targets of the
communication procedures. The linguistic communication is constituted from major elements
which are collectively integrative in order to realize the objective for the sake of which the
communication is made available. These elements are: Sender, Receiver, Linguistic message,
Sending Channel, Linguistic code and Communication environment. Each element must
necessarily be featured with inevitable conditions in order to insure the success of linguistic
communication procedure. According to the Traditional Teaching Methods, language
curriculum development and selection of its contents were made on the basis of principles and
linguistic patterns, but according to this modern communicative approach, selection of
contents is outstandingly based on the commutative attitudes, not on linguistic principles.
Nihaad Al-Musa (2003) said, it is not necessary for teacher to dictate a poetical or prosodic
portion or Quranic verses, in repetition, for the purpose of memorization in spite of the fact
that the meaning is neither comprehended nor used to. It is not a good attitude in Language
Teaching whereby teacher is expected to dictate on his students, portion which is not envisaged
by them. It is not a linguistic teaching attitude as well, the method where student is required to
write an expression in truncation with imperfect meaning in beautiful handwriting.... This is
because all such attitudes and the likes will restrict language to vocal expression or written
symbol only, whereas language is never like that. Vocal is nothing except as an instrument and
nothing is symbol except as a means; both are instruments and means in a connotative
explanation or establishment of feeling or expression of a situation. For student, impossible for
them to speak while still consulting dictionary first to be provided with vocabularies needed in
that particular situation, then proceeds to consulting grammatical principles so as to
understand how to operate and consult sentences, rather the expression is expected to be
perfectly prompt, integrative and correlative (Sa’eed Muhammad Muraad: 2002).
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
Celik, (2014) mentioned that until the latter part of the 20th century, the theoretical
foundations of language education were firmly anchored in behavioural psychology and
structuralism, which held that learning mainly took place through a process of repetition and
habit forming. language teaching was typically divided into four skill categories, including the
Page 5 of 20
131
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
active skills of speaking and writing, as well as the passive skills of listening and reading
(Savignon: 1991); and foreign language lessons often centred on rehearsing a fixed repertoire
of grammatical patterns and vocabulary items until they could be reproduced easily and
precisely, with a low tolerance for error. However, Richards (2006) points out that because the
focus of learning was primarily confined to accuracy of production, rather than meaningful
interaction, individuals taught according to this approach frequently experienced considerable
difficulty in real-life communicative encounters. Noted linguist and social theorist Noam
Chomsky (1965) criticized this aspect of language instruction, arguing that: Linguistic theory
is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech
community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically
irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shits of attention and interest, and
errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual
performance (p. 3). this criticism of the traditional view of language learning as a sterile,
intellectual exercise, rather than as a practical undertaking resulting in skills that may be
applied in real-life situations, was echoed by scholars such as Habermas (1970), Hymes (1971),
and Savignon (1972), who based their understanding of language on the psycholinguistic and
socio-cultural perspectives that meaning is generated through a collaborative process of
“expression, negotiation and interpretation” (Savignon, 1991, p. 262) between interlocutors.
Hymes (1971), in particular, stressed the need for language learners to develop communicative
competence, which suggests that successful communication requires “knowing when and how
to say what to whom” (larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 115); in his view, knowledge of
grammatical structures and vocabulary were not sufficient to enable communication on a
functional level.
Hymes’ (1971) ideas were supported by an evolving understanding of how communication
occurs. Research on language and communication revealed that the so-called “passive”
language learning skills – reading and listening – in fact require active engagement on the part
of the learner; as a result, these skills were re-conceptualized as receptive activities, while the
skills of speaking and writing were reclassified as productive (Savignon, 1991). Furthermore,
it was recognized that communication consists not only of production (message-sending) and
reception (message-receiving), but negotiation of meaning, or collaboration between senders
and receivers. Added to the dramatic shift in the international social and political climate of the
late 1960s and early 1970s, along with the expansion of global English, this changing viewpoint
brought recognition of the need to reframe our conception of language education from that of
teaching a language to teaching students how to use the language (Nunan, 1989). Principles of
Communicative Language Teaching unlike many of the other instructional techniques covered
in this book, communicative language teaching does not constitute a method in itself. Rather,
CLT is a set of principles framing an overarching approach to language teaching which may be
carried out according to a variety of different methods (some of these, including Content-based
instruction (CBI) and task-based instruction (TBI) will be dealt with in separate chapters later
on). These principles have been summarized by Berns (1990) as follows:
1. Language teaching is based on a view of language as communication. That is, language
is seen as a social tool that speakers use to make meaning; speakers communicate
about something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing.
2. Diversity is recognized and accepted as part of language development and use in
second language learners and users, as it is with first language users.
3. A learner’s competence is considered in relative, not in absolute, terms.
Page 6 of 20
132
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
4. More than one variety of a language is recognized as a viable model for learning and
teaching.
5. Culture is recognized as instrumental in shaping speakers’ communicative
competence, in both their first and subsequent languages.
6. No single methodology or fixed set of techniques is prescribed.
7. Language use is recognized as serving ideational, interpersonal and textual functions
and is related to the development of learners’ competence in each.
8. It is essential that learners be engaged in doing things with language— that is, that they
use language for a variety of purposes in all phases of learning (p. 104).
Because the communicative approach does not comprise a standardized framework for
teaching, curriculum design is largely up to individual institutions and the language instructors
who teach according to these principles. However, regardless of the specific techniques
employed, any teaching methods that can be classified as truly communicative share these
assumptions.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
As Richards and Rodgers (2001) stress, communicative learning activities are those which
promote learning through communication itself; therefore, the range of instructional practices
that may be employed in CLT is bounded only by the creativity of curriculum designers and
classroom instructors in developing authentic communicative tasks. breen (1987) described
these as structured activities which “have the overall purpose of facilitating language learning
– from the simple and brief exercise type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group
problem solving or simulations and decision making” (p. 23). Designing Communicative Tasks
Nunan (1989) enumerates six basic elements that should be taken into account in designing
communicative tasks, including:
1. Learning goals;
2. Linguistic input;
3. Classroom activities;
4. The teacher’s role;
5. The role of the students; and
6. The setting in the activities
Learning Goals
According to Nunan’s (1989) understanding, the learning goals of a communicative exercise
denote the range of outcomes that are expected as a result of carrying out a speciied learning
task. in terms of communicative language learning, these goals entail “establishing and
maintaining relationships” (p. 50); exchanging information; carrying out daily tasks; and
obtaining and utilizing information from a variety of sources (such as the internet, television,
newspapers, public announcements, research materials and so on).
Linguistic Input
The input of a communicative task refers to any type of information source on which the
exercise is centred. For instance, depending on the learning objective and the needs of the
students, a teacher might design an activity framed around a newspaper article, a class
schedule, a recipe, a feature film, a schematic of a computer circuit, or a map.
Page 7 of 20
133
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
Activities
Learning activities in a communicative context are drawn from the relevant input in order to
develop competencies such interactional ability in real-life settings, skills building, or fluency
and accuracy in communication (Nunan: 1989). These should be designed to mirror authentic
communicative scenarios as closely as possible, and “methods and materials should
concentrate on the message, not the medium” (Clarke & Silberstein, 1977, p. 51). Özsevik
(2010) and Richards (2006) suggest the use of information-gap and problem-solving exercises,
dialogs, role play, debates on familiar issues, oral presentations, and other activities which
prompt learners to make communicative use of the target language; in doing so, they develop
the skills that they will need to use the language in unrehearsed, real life situations.
Role of the Teacher
Richards and Rodgers (2001) emphasize that the teacher’s role in implementing a
communicative learning exercise is somewhat malleable in comparison with other, more
instructor-oriented approaches to language learning. in traditional language classrooms, the
instructor is generally the dominant igure; the focus of the class is on the teacher, and students
may assume a passive role as they receive direct instruction. in the communicative classroom,
on the other hand, the focus is on interaction between students. the teacher’s role in this setting
as that of a “needs analyst” who is responsible for “determining and responding to learner
language needs” (p. 167) within a specific learning context. In this case, the teacher serves
mainly as a facilitator, designing activities that are geared toward communication and
monitoring students’ progress, as well as stepping in as necessary to resolve breakdowns in
communication. Beyond this, the instructor may take on the role of a participant in a given
exercise, or even act as a co-learner herself, as students express themselves during the course
of a communicative task (Nunan, 1989, p. 89). When errors occur, the instructor may note them
without comment so as not to disrupt the low of the activity, instead addressing the issues that
appear to cause difficulties at a later time (larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). As Richards and
Rodgers (2001) suggest, teachers who lack specialized training may ind classroom
development to be challenging in such a learning environment, as they strive to find a balance
between providing structure to the learning process while still maintaining a natural low of
communication.
Role of the Students
Within the framework of a communicative approach, students are the focal point of classroom
activity, assuming primary responsibility for their own learning. As it is assumed that using a
language is the most effective way to learn it (richards, 2006), students are encouraged to work
together to negotiate meaning in order to accomplish a given communicative task; thus,
learning activities are highly interactive and may take place in smaller groups or with an entire
class. In this context, learners are responsible for choosing which forms of the language they
use to convey their messages, rather than following a prescribed lexis (belchamber, 2007).
Setting. Finally, Nunan (1989) notes the significance of the setting in which communicative
learning takes place. While the classroom is the most typical venue for language learning,
communicative tasks may also be carried out in venues as diverse as occupational settings,
online instruction or in the community at large; therefore, activities designers should consider
the specific requirements of the learning context in developing learning tasks.
Page 8 of 20
134
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Role of the Target Language
Because the goal of language learning in a communicative context is, by definition, developing
the ability to communicate in the target language, nearly everything is done with this in mind,
as it is essential to make it clear to students that the language is not only a subject to be
mastered, but a means for real interaction. Accordingly, not only learning tasks, but classroom
management and direct instruction are carried out in the target language whenever practicable,
with teachers turning to the students’ native language only when required to ensure
comprehension. Activities are focused on authentic use of the target language, utilizing “games,
role-plays and problem-solving tasks”, to approximate real-life situations in which the language
may be used. In addition, the use of teaching materials – restaurant menus, greeting cards,
music videos, comic strips, tv episodes, concert tickets, newspaper articles and travel guides –
that showcase authentic functions of the language underscores its communicative nature and
helps students to develop the skills they need to interact in real-life situations (Larsen-Freeman
& Anderson, 2011, p. 123).
Role of the Native Language
Unlike some modern approaches to language instruction, such as the direct Method, the use of
the students’ mother tongue is not prohibited in CLT. However, in order to emphasize the
communicative aspect of the target language, use of the mother tongue should be kept to a
minimum and used only as needed for issues such as classroom management or giving complex
instructions that are beyond the students’ level of proficiency in the target language (Larsen- Freeman & Anderson, 2011).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research is a quantitative research. The researchers have distributed the questionnaires
to the students of Level one in the same faculty, the same university, who attended Arabic
Language Communication class, 2024 session. They were 12 students among overall number
of 30 students, (which sampled 40%). After these students arrived at the required data, they
carried out quantitative and evaluative analysis to arrive at the required results.
RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
The Level of Teacher’s Communication with Arabic Language While Teaching Arabic
Language Communication in The University of Sultan Sherif Ali (UNISSA)
The teacher communicates in Arabic language while teaching Arabic language communication
in the University of Sultan Sharif Ali
Chart 1
Page 9 of 20
135
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
It shows from above chart that 75% samples strongly agree that the teacher communicates in
Arabic language while teaching Arabic language communication in the Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic
University, 16.7% agree, and 8.3% is neutral. The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(9 × 5) + (2 × 4) + (1 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(93.3%) =
45 + 8 + 3 = 56
60
× 100
This means that the teacher communicates in Arabic language during the teaching of Arabic
language communication, in Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University, and the number of the “agree”
sample is 93.3% while the “Disagree” sample is 6.7%.
The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher communicates in Arabic
language when he teaches Arabic language communication in Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic
University with 93.3%, while the negative part shows that the teacher does not, with just 6.7%.
The Teacher Requires Students to Converse Orally Between Themselves with Arabic
Language on The Topics Relating to Daily Interaction
Chart 2
It shows from above chart that 58.3% strongly agree that the teacher requires students to
converse orally among themselves with Arabic language on topics relating to daily interaction,
33.3% agree while 8.3 is neutral.
The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(7 × 5) + (4 × 4) + (1 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(90%) =
35 + 16 + 3 = 54
60
× 100
Page 10 of 20
136
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
This means that the teacher requires students to converse orally among themselves in Arabic
language on topics relating to daily issues, and the number of the “agree” sample is 90% while
the “disagree” sample is 10%.
The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher requires students to
converse orally in Arabic language on topics relating to daily interaction 90%, while the
negative part shows that the teacher does not, with just 10%.
The Teacher Records Students’ Voices During Their Oral Conversation Among
Themselves in The Class
Chart 3
It shows from above chart that 33.3% strongly agree that the teacher records students’ voices
during their oral conversation among themselves in the class, 8.3% agree while 8.3 is neutral.
The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(4 × 5) + (1 × 4) + (7 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(75%) =
20 + 4 + 21 = 45
60
× 100
This means that the teacher records students’ voices during their oral conversation between
themselves in the class and the number of the “agree” sample is 75% while the “disagree”
sample is 25%.
The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher records students’ voices
during their oral conversation among themselves in the class 90% while the negative part
shows that the teacher does not, with just 25%.
Teacher’s Correction on The Oral Mistakes Committed by The Students During Their
Oral Conversation in The Class by Listening to The Voice Records
Page 11 of 20
137
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
Chart 4
It shows from above chart that 50% strongly agree that the teacher corrects the oral mistakes
committed by the students during their oral conversation in the class by listening to the voice
records, 33.3% agree while 16.7 is neutral. The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(6 × 5) + (4 × 4) + (2 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(86.7%) =
30 + 16 + 6 = 52
60
× 100
This means that the teacher corrects oral mistakes committed by the students during their oral
conversation in the class by listening to their voice records, and the number of the “agree”
sample is 86.7while the “disagree” sample is 13.3%. The positive part of this sampling
techniques shows that the teacher corrects oral mistakes committed by the students during
their oral conversation between themselves in the class by listening to their voice records
86.7% while the negative part shows that the teacher does not, with just 13.3%.
The Teacher Requires Students to Converse Textually Between Themselves with Arabic
Language in The Class
Chart 5
Page 12 of 20
138
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
It shows from above chart that33.3% strongly agree that the teacher requires students to
converse textually between themselves with Arabic Language in the class, 41.7% agree while
25 is neutral. The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(4 × 5) + (5 × 4) + (3 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(81.7%) =
20 + 20 + 9 = 49
60
× 100
This means that the teacher requires students to converse textually between themselves with
Arabic language in the class, and the number of the “agree” sample is 81.7while the “disagree”
sample is 18.3%. The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher requires
students to converse textually between themselves with Arabic language in the class 81.7%
while the negative part shows that the teacher does not, with just 18.3%.
The Teacher Present Students’ Textual Conversation Between Themselves on The
Screen in The Class
Chart 6
It shows from above chart that 41.7% strongly agree that the teacher present students’ textual
conversation between themselves on the screen in the class while58.3% agree. The analysis of
these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(5 × 5) + (7 × 4)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(88.3%) =
25 + 28 = 53
60
× 100
Page 13 of 20
139
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
This means that the teacher presents students’ textual conversation between themselves on the
screen in the class, and the number of the “agree” sample is 88.3% while the “disagree” sample
is 11.7%. The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher present students’
textual conversation between themselves on the screen in the class 88.3% while the negative
part shows that the teacher does not, with just 11.7%.
The Teacher Corrects the Textual Mistakes Committed by Students on The Screen
Through the Use of Projector in The Class
Chart 7
It shows from above chart that 33.3% strongly agree that the teacher corrects the textual
mistakes committed by students on the screen through the use of projector in the class, 41.7%
agree, 16.7% is neutral while 8.3% disagree.
The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(4 × 5) + (5 × 4) + (2 × 3) + (1 × 2)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(80%) =
20 + 20 + 6 + 2 = 48
60
× 100
This means that the teacher corrects the textual mistakes committed by students on the screen
through the use of projector in the class, and the number of the “agree” sample is 80% while
the “disagree” sample is 20%. The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the
teacher corrects the textual mistakes committed by students on the screen through the use of
projector in the class 80% while the negative part shows that the teacher does not, with just
20%.
The Teacher Provides Enough Time for Students for Listening to Arabic Voice Recorded
on Topics Relating to Daily Interaction
Page 14 of 20
140
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Chart 8
It shows from above chart that 41.7% strongly agree that the teacher provides enough time for
students for listening to Arabic voice records on topics relating to daily interaction, 50% agree,
while 8.3 is neutral. The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(5 × 5) + (6 × 4) + (1 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(86.7%) =
25 + 24 + 3 = 52
60
× 100
This means that the teacher provides enough time for students for listening to Arabic voice
records on topics relating to daily interaction, and the number of the “agree” sample is 86.7%
while the disagree sample is 13.3%. The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that
the teacher corrects the textual mistakes committed by students on the screen through the use
of projector in the class 86.7% while the negative part shows that the teacher does not, with
just 13.3%.
The Teacher Provides Enough Time for Students to Read Arabic Conversation on Topics
Relating to Daily Interacion
Chart 9
Page 15 of 20
141
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
It shows from above chart that 41.7% strongly agree that the teacher provides enough time for
students to read Arabic conversation on topics relating to daily interaction, 50% agree, while
8.3 is neutral.
The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(5 × 5) + (6 × 4) + (1 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(86.7%) =
25 + 24 + 3 = 52
60
× 100
This means that teacher provides enough time for students to read Arabic conversation on
topics relating to daily interaction and the number of the “agree” sample is 86.7% while the
disagree sample is 13.3%. The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher
provides enough time for students to read Arabic conversation on topics relating to daily
interaction86.7% while the negative part shows that the teacher does not, with just 13.3%.
The Teacher Provides Enough Time for Students for Oral Conversation Between
Themselves on Topics Relating to Daily Interaction
Chart 10
It shows from above chart that 33.3% strongly agree that the teacher provides enough time for
students for oral conversation between themselves on topics relating to daily interaction,
58.3% agree, while 8.3 is neutral.
The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(4 × 5) + (7 × 4) + (1 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
Page 16 of 20
142
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
P(85%) =
20 + 28 + 3 = 51
60
× 100
This means that teacher provides enough time for students for oral conversation between
themselves on topics relating to daily interaction and the number of the “agree” sample is 85%
while the disagree sample is 15%.
The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher provides enough time for
students for oral conversation between themselves on topics relating to daily interaction 85%
while the negative part shows that the teacher does not, with just 15%.
The Teacher Provides Enough Time for Students for Textual Conversation Between
Themselves on Topics Relating to Daily Interaction
Chart 11
It shows from above chart that 58.3% strongly agree that the teacher provides enough time for
students for textual conversation between themselves on topics relating to daily interaction,
while 41.7% agree.
The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(3 × 5) + (7 × 4) + (2 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(81.7%) =
15 + 28 + 6 = 49
60
× 100
This means that teacher provides enough time for students for textual conversation between
themselves on topics relating to daily interaction and that the number of the “agree” sample is
81.7% while the disagree sample is 18.3%. The positive part of this sampling techniques shows
that the teacher provides enough time for students for oral conversation between themselves
on topics relating to daily interaction 81.7% while the negative part shows that the teacher
does not, with just 18.3%.
Page 17 of 20
143
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
The Teacher Teaches the Arabic Language Communication Using Attractive
Methodology
Chart 12
It shows from above chat that 58.3% strongly agree that the teacher teaches the Arabic
language communication using attractive methodology, while 41.7% agree. The analysis of
these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(7 × 5) + (5 × 4)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(91.7%) =
35 + 20 = 55
60
× 100
This means that the teacher teaches the Arabic language communication using attractive
methodology, and that the number of the “agree” sample is 81.7% while the disagree sample is
18.3%. The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher teaches the Arabic
language communication using attractive methodology 91.7% while the negative part shows
that the teacher does not, with just 8.3%.
The Teacher Teaches Arabic Language Communication Using Different Teaching
Methodologies
Chart 13
Page 18 of 20
144
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The teacher teaches Arabic language communication using different teaching methodologies
It shows from above chart that 50% strongly agree that the teacher teaches Arabic language
communication using different teaching methodologies,41.7% agree while 8.3 is neutral.
The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
P(%) =
(6 × 5) + (5 × 4) + (1 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(88.3%) =
30 + 20 + 3 = 53
60
× 100
This means that the teacher teaches Arabic language communication using different teaching
methodologies and that the number of the “agree” sample is 88.3% while the “disagree” sample
is 11.7%.
The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher teaches the Arabic
language communication using attractive methodology 88.3% while the negative part shows
that the teacher does not, with just 11.7%.
The Teacher Drills the Students on Four Language Skill Acquisition on The Average
Percentage
Chart 14
The teacher drills the students on four language skills acquisition on the average percentage;
It shows from above chart that 50% strongly agree that the teacher drills the students on four
language skill acquisition on the average percentage, 33.3% agree while 16% is neutral.
The analysis of these percentages goes thus:
P(100) =
∑fi(frequencies). xi(options)
N(summation )
× 100
Page 19 of 20
145
Subari, A. Y. B. I., Ahmad, S. S. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., Jaili, H. B. H., Abdullah, R. B., & Rosmin, N. B. B. H. (2024). Finding an Effectiveness of Teaching
Methodology of Arabic Language Communication in Sultan Sherif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA): A Case Study of the Faculty of Usuluddinn UNISSA.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 127-146.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17373
P(%) =
(6 × 5) + (4 × 4) + (2 × 3)
12 × 5 = 60
× 100
P(86.7%) =
30 + 16 + 6 = 52
60
× 100
This means that the teacher drills the students on four language skill acquisition on the average
percentage and that the number of the “agree” sample is 88.3% while the “disagree” sample is
11.7%.
The positive part of this sampling techniques shows that the teacher drills the students on four
language skill acquisition on the average percentage 86.7% while the negative part shows that
the teacher does not, with just 13.3%.
CONCLUSION
This research finds that the positive aspects of methods of teaching Arabic Language
Communication in Sultan Sheriff Ali Islamic University is that teacher communicates in Arabic
Language when he teaches Arabic Language communication in the University of Sultan Sheriff
Ali with the percentage of (93.3%); that the teacher requires students to communicate within
themselves with Arabic language on topics relating to daily conversation under (90%); that he
records their voices during this exercise in the class; that he makes verbal corrections in the
case of mistakes committed by students by listening to this voice record (86.7%); that he
requires students to make written conversation within themselves (81.7%); that he presents
the students’ written conversation on the screen in the class 88.3%; that he makes correction
of errors committed by students on the screen through the use of projector in the class (80%);
that he provides enough chance for students, for listening to Arabic voices on topics related to
daily conversation(86.7%); that he provides chance for oral conversation within themselves
(81.7%); that he uses attractive method in Arabic language communication course (88.3); that
he drills the students on four language acquisition skills (86.7). on the negative part, it shows
that the teacher does not speak Arabic language when he teaches Arabic Language
Communication in the UNISSA (6.7%); that he does not require students to converse orally in
Arabic language among themselves (10%); that he does not record the students’ voices during
their oral conversation (25%); that he does not make correction on the oral mistakes
committed by students (13.3 %); that he does not require students to make written
conversation with Arabic language between themselves (18.3%); that he does not presenting
students’ conversation on the screen in the class (11.7%); that he does not correct written
mistakes of the students on the projector (20%); that he does not provide enough time to
students for listening to Arabic voices relating to the topic on daily interaction (13.3%); that he
does not give enough time to students for oral conversation relating to the topic on oral
conversation among themselves (15%); that he does not provide enough time to students for
writing the conversation relating to daily interaction (18.3%); that he does not use the
attractive method in the Arabic language communication course (8.3%); that he does not use
different types of teaching methodology in Arabic language communication course (11.7%);
that he does not drill students on four language acquisition skills (13.3%).
Page 20 of 20
146
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
References
‘Atiyyah, Muhsin ‘Ali (2008). Mahaaraat Al-Ittisaal Al-Lughawi wa Ta’leemuhaa. Jordan: Dar Al-Manaahij li An- Nashr wa At-Tawzee’, 1st Edition.
Al-Musa, Nihaad (2005). Al-Asaaleeb: Manaahij wa Namaadhij fee Ta’leem Al-Lughat Al-‘Arabiyyah. ‘Amman: Dar
Ash-Shuruuq, 1st Edition.
Belchamber, r. (2007). The advantages of communicative language teaching. The Internet TESL Journal. 13, 2, 1-4
Berns, M. S. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in Communicative Language
Teaching. New York: Plenum Press.
Brown, Gillian (1994). Language and Understanding. Oxford University Press
Celik, Servet (2014). Approaches and principles in English as a foreign language (EFL). Turkey. Eğiten, Publisher.
Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge. Germany, Frankfurt.
Habermas, J. (1977). Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften: Materialien (edition suhrkamp)
Howatt, Anthony Philip Reid (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_language_teaching)
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/communicative-approach)
Hymes, D. (1971). On linguistic theory, communicative competence, and the education of disadvantaged children.
New York.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Anderson, Marti (2011). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford
Press.
McLaren, P. & Farahmandpur, R. (2005). Teaching against Global Capitalism and the New Imperialism: A Critical
Pedagogy. The International Journal of Progressive Education. Vol 1, Issue 2.
Muraad, Sa’eed Muhammad (2002). At-Takaamuliyyah fee Ta’leem Al-Lughat Al-‘Arabiyyah. Jordan: Dar Al-Amal
li An-Nashr wa At-Tawzee’, 1st Edition.
Nunan, David. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. England: Cambridge.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, t. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University
Press
Savignon, Sandra J. (1972). Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign-Language Teaching.
University of California. Centre for Curriculum Development.Inc
Shamsuddin, Salahuddin Mohd, Siti Sara Binti Hj. Ahmad. (2017). Contemporary Issues of Teaching Arabic in
Southeast Asian Countries (Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia for the example). Quest Journals, Journal of Research
in Humanities and Social Science, Volume 5 ~ Issue 6 (2017) pp.: 42-51